When I see somone refer to a 'standard' or a 'protocol', the only reply I can make is SHOW IT TO ME! Otherwise, it is just your opinion. I will continue to call CQ and, GASP, actually have people come back to me! So stay silent and snicker, you probably don't have anything useful to say anyhow.

"RE: 2 meter repeater use Reply by KG4RUL on December 13, 2002 Mail this to a friend! Enroute on a recent trip from Charleston, SC to Northeastern OH, a total of 1500 miles roundtrip, I made a concerted effort to use the available 2M repeaters. I programmed all repeaters within 30 miles of my route into my Yaesu FT-1500M. As the trip progressed, I would alternately listen and call on the repeaters that were within range. This resulted in a TOTAL of SIX contacts! Calls on 146.520 simplex netted a SINGLE contact.

I usually stop midpoint each way when making this trip. On the return trip, I heard a recorded announcement for a meeeting of the local club at my stopping point. I began calling for directions, on that repeater and the other local repeaters, as I approached the town. I continued calling on my HT after I checked into the hotel and up to the time of the meeting. NO ONE answered any of my calls! I was unable to attend the meeting!

Talk about indifference or lack of usage (I can't determine which was the case). How will we justify our allocation of spectrum in the future with a record like this? All in all, it is very discouraging.

Dennis - KG4RUL"

Hmmm. Would you like to withdraw your last statement? Perhaps you should drop the "CQ". You might have more luck making contacts.

Mike, I am truly glad that you brought this up! On the above mentioned trip, I followed the 'standard'/'protocol' and did NOT call CQ. The results speak for themselves.

I called as 'listening', 'monitoring', 'is there anybody listening to this repeater', 'is there a control operator monitoring this repeater', etc. What more could one do, short of projecting themselves through the ether to grab somone by the ears and make them listen?

If this is the kind of response one gets when using repeaters, the amateur community will be hard pressed to preserve our precious slices of spectrum in the future.

Whether you believe it or not makes not one whit of difference. The fact is, that is what I did, on that trip. I got virtually no reponses to hundreds of calls. Would calling CQ have made a difference? I can't prove that it would have and conversely, you can't prove that it wouldn't. If I choose to call CQ I will. Fortunately, you don't appear to be in range of any repeaters that I customarily use, so your ears will not be offended.

But it is important to know that although there is no "written procedure" against calling CQ on a repeater, it is just not usually done by the vast majority of Hams on repeaters. I've never heard it ever.

You may choose to use it if you wish of course. But know that when someone does something different than most people, that person will stand out and often be frowned upon or looked at differently than others or thought of as a beginner etc etc. Now it is perfectly OK to be different if you wish. After all, you have a right to operate as you choose (within legal bounds of course).

But when a newcomer or inexperienced operater asks a question regarding repeater procedures, why would you encourage him to use a procedure that is generally not used by most of us?

This person probably doesn't want to be a pioneer like you and use uncommon procedures, but rather would like to make repeater contacts in the generally accepted manner and enjoy the hobby without standing out like a "sore thumb."

So why not steer him in the direction that most of us are doing? It will certainly make things easier for him. Later when he is comfortable, he can always change his mind and be different.

I think we should avoid childish rules that make newcomers feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Every ham knows that "CQ" means "calling any station". Why would we discourage the use of that particular word?

On CB, it's considered inappropriate to say "name"; you have to say "handle". You have to say "smokey" instead of police officer. A bunch of childish rules. Do we want amateur VHF/UHF operation to be like CB?

My 11-year-old niece so much enjoyed when I let her operate HF SSB that she went and got her Tech w/HF license, and she's studying for her General test now! Now I'm introducing her to 2M, and I'm embarassed to have to explain to her that calling CQ is considered inappropriate on 2M. She asks with the wide-eyed innocence of an 11-year-old girl, "Why?" I cannot think of any way to explain to her why grown ups would prefer an unclear statement like "KB1JFN monitoring", when CQ is a more clear and accurate way of saying what she wants to say.

After some thought, I decided to just let her call CQ, figuring that people would be kind to her because of her extremely YL voice.

It really made me think. Are we trying to be grown ups or CB'ers?

Sure it's standard protocol to avoid the term CQ, but we creaate the standard protocol with our usage! If you want this to be ham radio, and not CB, let's get rid of this childish "rule"! Next time I'm looking for a conversation on 2M, I'm going to call it what it really is -- CQ!

The whole world is filled with informal customs and unwritten "rules" and procedures in every aspect of life.

It doesnt mean it is right or wrong. It just means that it is the way it is.

In life, as a newbie in any arena, there are customs and procedures that those before us use, and when we are new, we tend to adopt those same customs so that we may become accepted in that society that we are choosing to join. Its like a fraternity.

And HAM radio is a fraternity. Every type of fraternity or micro society/club/sport etc has its own slang or procedures that in a way 'seperate' themselves from the rest of the world.

"CQ" is not common practice on repeaters. I'm not sure why. Probably because repeater work is channelized and if someone IS on they will here you vs HF where you may have to call CQ several times before someone tuning the dial comes across your signal. There may not even be a reason. But things are the way they are. like it or not.

Truckers, who were very unhappy with the newly enacted 55 mph speed limit, because they were losing money, would run in "convoys" and use the CB radio to alert other truckers of law enforcement units. This would enable them to speed with a much lower likelyhood of getting caught.

The slang was a "code" adopted to disguise their identidy and their activities from law enforcement officers who also had CBs in their vehicles and might be listening. (usually in rural areas).

So you see, the use of slang such as handles, etc actually started out as a necessity for guys trying to earn a decent living and support their families-not just being 'childish' as you erroneously state.

Later, when the public caught on, it got out of control. So you see, it was the "general public" who actually ruined the CB band-not the "childish" slang talking truckers who pioneered the whole CB lingo.

Look at it this way... It's FM you are using a repeater... The odds are in favour your audio is intelligible (providing PL tones are correct)...As long as you identify and you are not saying anything that may offend anyone, just SAY IT.CQ, Hey I'm a dork or WHATEVER. If someone wants to reply, they will

PAGE 3-8 ..."IT'S NOT GOOD REPEATER ETIQUETTE TO CALL CQ. EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION IS THE GOAL. YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF SOMEONE WHO IS CASUALLY TUNING HIS RECEIVER ACROSS THE BAND."

PAGE 3-7 ...TRANSMIT YOUR CALL SIGN. FOR EXAMPLE, "THIS IS NU0X MONITORING." THIS ADVISES OTHERS ON FREQUENCY THAT YOU ARE AVAILABLE TO TALK...

DO AS YOU WISH. BE DIFFERENT. BE UNIQUE. WHATEVER. JUST DON'T STEER A NEWBIE THAT WAY.

Copyright 2000-2017 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement